pretty sure I've done some reviews on my first listen, btw 8) Generally crappy eps when I'm really bored. I did one review by a (now deleted) Drone band, in 8 minutes! I was only halfway through the second song

Didn't you also review a Trivium album after only hearing the single? Ahhh, good times.

actually, it was 5 minutes, and I got 8 points for it, that's correct.

That trivium review: wasn't even the single! Just a random song. That was an awful review, though, definitely my worst "review an album without listening to the whole thing" review (and there's a few of 'em!)

Caspian, it's not so wrong when it's obviously total shit like Trivium. You get a perfectly good picture of it just from listening to 1-2 songs.

MacMoney wrote:

The requirement is four. Four times. You have to listen to it four times before reviewing. If you listen to it any less, even if you skip a second of silence, it'll be rejected. No questions asked. So four.

For me, I usually listen to a record for a full 24 hours, whether that be me hearing it four times or 20 times. With that said, I have to make sure the record consumes me on all levels before I actually site down and try to gather my thoughts in Microsoft Word.

Since I review with the objective of assembling a magazine and publishing a tangible object, I put a lot of time into the reviews that I write, and consequently, I put a lot of time into the albums that I review. Oftentimes it is not until several months after I first acquire a CD that I begin to write a review for it. I like to listen to it several times initially, then give it space and come back to it after a period of time to see if my initial observations are still valid. While this is not the most expedient and contemporaneous means of reviewing, my goal is not to get my take on an album out as fast as possible to make sure that as many people know what I think as possible; rather, my sights are set on a broader ambition than simply "here's what I think about the latest album right now". I like to think of my reviews as complete in the sense that they capture what I expect that I will feel about a particular album for the duration of time while placing it within a historical context of past, present, and future. It takes a lot more time, but it's more rewarding and contributes more in the long run than a series "here's what I think" one-liners.

I usually scan through my playlist til a track comes on and I have a really strong opinion on a very specific aspect of it; then scan through their discog for a general background opinion on the band; also good for comparisons), then listen to only the album I'll be reviewing as I'm reviewing it... Some may see this as lazy, waiting for inspiration to 'strike,' but as most have covered -- everyone's different and reviews are as subjective as they come.

This might be a silly, or subjective question, but i've been wanting to review my music collection, and I just want some advice, about how many times listening to something is good before you write a review for it?

Some releases ony a few times other hundreds. But I have to say I want to at least hear a new release 5 times before reviewing. except when I totally and truly HATE it. In that case 3 times is my max

After one listen I'll know if I have something to say or not. Good or bad. Then it's just a matter of wanting to say it. I don't want to sound like an idiot, or a whiner. I just want to write a review that might be helpful to someone who reads it.

The requirement is four. Four times. You have to listen to it four times before reviewing. If you listen to it any less, even if you skip a second of silence, it'll be rejected. No questions asked. So four.

Confirming that many people only listen once when giving bad reviews is not really a shock when reading some of them.

Often it seems like the reviewers are either disappointed based on expectations or hype, and rush to some judgement, or simply don't like the band and are just listening once to prove that their assumptions are correct.

I also get a feeling that many rate based on what others have rated, simply because they want to affect the overall score or to show how disappointed they are, and not how good the release is.

That's a fairly bold assessment. It undoubtedly happens, but probably not to the frequency you believe, Megadeth. Granted, I'm with you about one-listen reviews being bad logic, but I'm sure at least the core foundation of veteran reviewers 'round this neck of the woods practice a deeper reviewing method than most.

_________________

Ismetal wrote:

GuntherTheUndying IS THE GAY NUMBER 1, HE DOESNT LIKE TO READ THE TRUTH, SO I THINK THIS PAGE IS FOR GAYS WHO WANTS TO READ MESSAGES LIKE "I LOVE MY BAND", "THEY ARE MY LOVE"

I don't think the scores given are "political" in that sense. The moderation keeps out pretty much all counter-reviews.

_________________"Since that time, I have received highest level confirmations that such organizations not only exist but are rooted in satanic ritual murder and extend across America’s political landscape into nearly every community."

Generally it's not good to review based on only one listen, but honestly some albums you kinda can tell you will hate just based on one or two. Do I really need to spend a month lisening to the new Running Wild album to tell it sucks?

I like to listen 6-10 times depending on the density of the album. Some albums need even more listens. Really bad albums might need only 2-3 listens. I would say its virtually impossible to have anything worth sharing about an album after a single listen.

Usually only once or twice. Special cases come up like Agony by Fleshgod Apocalypse where I could not stop listening to the album long enough to review it so by the time I did review it I had listened to it I think 8 or 9 times, or the new Nile album where I intentionally listened to it a second time because I barely remembered anything about it after I listened to it the first time.

NOW... That being said, this isn't ten times in one day. I might listen to it twenty or thirty times over the course of three or four months... I do like to "let it go" for awhile, come back to it later on, maybe at different times of the day.

I look at it this way: the artist (or artists, bands, whatever) spent a lot of time (and probably money) to put together what he/she/they thought was the perfect album. And if you don't believe me, read some bands interviews! "Ah, man, this album, we cranked it out in the studio for six fuckin' weeks, had Dan Swano up our ass 24-7, rewrote some parts that were crap. This is the best album we've ever done, we got our blood, sweat and tears into it... Yadda yadda yadda." You all know you've read interviews like this... So I feel I'm doing the band a HUGE disservice if I just cranked out some quick tagline (which is why you almost NEVER see Vibrations Of Doom magazine in record label bios for bands.) The artists spent time and effort recording and writing the album; I feel the least I can do is give it the adequate time it deserves.

Some bands will tell you in interviews (shit, they tell ME this all the time) "Ah, I really don't give a fuck what people think; I make the kind of music I wanna make." And that's all well and good, but these same reviewers READ these reviews. I ask a lot of bands "Hey, where have you been reviewed at," and they can usually tell me where they got good and bad reviews at. So don't think they don't read their own reviews, or CARE. They DO... They just might try and be all bad-ass about it, but they DO care. No one wants to put out "their" music and have no one appreciate it. Why would they go to all that trouble; just for themselves?

Now there are, obviously exceptions to that rule, but overall, no one wants to read 100 bad reviews of their album. But we all know tastes are subjective, and even people I know who trust my reviews and love the same stuff I do are generally going to hate a band I love... It happens. If you can adequately tell me WHY you hate an album, I'll respect you for it. Besides, as long as I've been doing this, for every band you tell me you hate, I can find you AT LEAST 50 other bands you can't live without. And if you think I'm kidding, you haven't seen my music collection!

i like to write the review as i'm on my second listen. on the first listen i'll take notes, just vague shorthand stuff, and then on the second listen i'll write while it plays. that's if it's an album i haven't heard a million times before or something. i could write a (overwhelmingly positive) for far away from the sun without actually listening to it for weeks, i think. not that i'd go that long!

Not a prolific or anytime good reviewer here but I listen no less than 5-6 times an album before making a judgement on it. Even for casual conversation I prefer to give my opinion once I've actually heard well something.

There are styles that are simpler so just a few listens are enough; more prog/avantgarde or heavily layered stuff require more sessions. Something like Solefald can't be properly reviewed with just 1 or 2 spins. A standard thrash metal album doesn't need more than 2 spins to me.

Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:18 pmPosts: 31Location: United States of America

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2014 3:30 am

VibrationsOfDoom wrote:

TEN... Ten listens at least, no matter what...

NOW... That being said, this isn't ten times in one day. I might listen to it twenty or thirty times over the course of three or four months... I do like to "let it go" for awhile, come back to it later on, maybe at different times of the day.

I look at it this way: the artist (or artists, bands, whatever) spent a lot of time (and probably money) to put together what he/she/they thought was the perfect album. And if you don't believe me, read some bands interviews! "Ah, man, this album, we cranked it out in the studio for six fuckin' weeks, had Dan Swano up our ass 24-7, rewrote some parts that were crap. This is the best album we've ever done, we got our blood, sweat and tears into it... Yadda yadda yadda." You all know you've read interviews like this... So I feel I'm doing the band a HUGE disservice if I just cranked out some quick tagline (which is why you almost NEVER see Vibrations Of Doom magazine in record label bios for bands.) The artists spent time and effort recording and writing the album; I feel the least I can do is give it the adequate time it deserves.

Some bands will tell you in interviews (shit, they tell ME this all the time) "Ah, I really don't give a fuck what people think; I make the kind of music I wanna make." And that's all well and good, but these same reviewers READ these reviews. I ask a lot of bands "Hey, where have you been reviewed at," and they can usually tell me where they got good and bad reviews at. So don't think they don't read their own reviews, or CARE. They DO... They just might try and be all bad-ass about it, but they DO care. No one wants to put out "their" music and have no one appreciate it. Why would they go to all that trouble; just for themselves?

Now there are, obviously exceptions to that rule, but overall, no one wants to read 100 bad reviews of their album. But we all know tastes are subjective, and even people I know who trust my reviews and love the same stuff I do are generally going to hate a band I love... It happens. If you can adequately tell me WHY you hate an album, I'll respect you for it. Besides, as long as I've been doing this, for every band you tell me you hate, I can find you AT LEAST 50 other bands you can't live without. And if you think I'm kidding, you haven't seen my music collection!

Nicely put, I especially enjoyed the last two lines...

I too listen to the album I am reviewing many many times over a multi-monthed time period and I don't like to review out of my familiarity zone or the stuff I like. Why listen to and/or review something I already know I will hate or don't have a passion for? What good will that do for anyone.

I also find it important during that "listening" phase to learn about the band. Read the bio and such. Makes for a better, more rounded and well thought out review.

Yeah, attempting to be conscientious in terms of how many times I listen to something before review is one reason labels/ bands rarely get reviews from promos they send me as quick as I'm sure they'd like. I don't necessarily feel like listening to an album multiple times in time for the release date even if it is interesting enough for me to cover at all. Too much like being in a hamster wheel, and prevents me from having week-long sessions of listening only to e.g. Amorphis like I'm doing at the moment. Honestly though, for shorter reviews (that I don't post here) I only listen a couple of times. That's more to give an idea and maybe keep the artists happy.

EDIT: Also, very much agree with what Empyreal said. There's no need to listen to something in full more than once or twice if you can instantly tell it is absolutely horrible - an ability most long time reviewers and listeners probably have if they have any kind of ability to differentiate. Or if it is one of the untold millions of bands that are "just OK" or "yet another band doing XYZ".

_________________"I have been given the flesh of the sun to eat, and the milk of the moon to drink.I have pressed through the long night and been reborn through the realms of dissolution."

Yeah, attempting to be conscientious in terms of how many times I listen to something before review is one reason labels/ bands rarely get reviews from promos they send me as quick as I'm sure they'd like. I don't necessarily feel like listening to an album multiple times in time for the release date even if it is interesting enough for me to cover at all. Too much like being in a hamster wheel, and prevents me from having week-long sessions of listening only to e.g. Amorphis like I'm doing at the moment. Honestly though, for shorter reviews (that I don't post here) I only listen a couple of times. That's more to give an idea and maybe keep the artists happy.

EDIT: Also, very much agree with what Empyreal said. There's no need to listen to something in full more than once or twice if you can instantly tell it is absolutely horrible - an ability most long time reviewers and listeners probably have if they have any kind of ability to differentiate. Or if it is one of the untold millions of bands that are "just OK" or "yet another band doing XYZ".

Yeah, I fucking hate reviewing promo material and stuff people send me. I used to do that for Metalcrypt and I just never got into it - the reviews I did were always substandard because I didn't really care about the albums. These days I just review whatever I want, and it gives me more time to write better stuff. Some people are great with promos; me, I never really caught the habit.

And yup to the second point...some albums you do need to give time, but if you're listening to something and just know "this isn't for me" after enough listening, there's a good gamble it isn't ever going to grow on you. Don't need seven listens to a latter-day In Flames album to know it sucks, for example.